Closures of coal and nuclear plants will not trouble the grid, says USA’s Largest power grid operator

Largest power grid operator dismisses the threat of coal and nuclear plant closures, Washington Examiner, by Josh Siegel, November 01, 2018

The operator of the largest power market in America released a report Thursday finding that its electricity supply would hold up against a range of threats, providing evidence against the Trump administration case for preserving coal and nuclear plants.

“The PJM system is reliable today and will remain reliable into the future,” the grid operator, PJM Interconnection, said in an eight-page summary of a much-anticipated report slated for full release in December.

Andrew Ott, president and CEO of PJM, amplified that assertion later Thursday during a press conference in Washington D.C.

“The grid is more reliable today than it’s ever been,” Ott said.

PJM covers a large territory representing 65 million people in 13 states from Illinois to Virginia.

The report weighs against the Trump administration’s interest in using emergency power to keep coal and nuclear plants alive.

“We think government intervention is unnecessary,” Ott said. “Nothing in our report would say there is a specific need for a specific fuel source. We are fuel neutral.”

The White House has reportedly considered asserting a national security justification for providing coal and nuclear plants with subsidies to keep them from retiring. The effort has stalled, but critics, who say action would upset competitive power markets that reward the lowest cost resource – and also raise electricity rates – fear the administration could try to revive the idea through different mechanisms.

Ott testified to Congress last month that the grid operator’s analysis shows that coal and nuclear closures in the region he covers scheduled for 2021 and 2022 can happen without causing a problem to the grid.

PJM has previously said its grid is “more reliable than ever” and that any federal intervention “would be damaging to the markets and therefore costly to consumers” by raising electricity prices.

……….. FERC, a panel of independent energy regulators, last year rejected a previous version of the Trump administration’s plan to provide special payments to uneconomic coal and nuclear plants that could store 90 days of fuel on-site. But it directed regional transmission operators such as PJM to submit information on resilience challenges in their markets, in anticipation of potential future action FERC could take on its own.

Don’t believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option http://tinyurl.com/zk8jt3a Ecologist: thorium is merely a way of deflecting attention and criticism from the dangers of the uranium fuel cycle and excusing the pumping of more money into the industry. It produces less radioactive waste and more power but it remains unproven on a commercial scale. ‘Even if thorium technology does progress to the point where it might be commercially viable, it will face the same problems as conventional nuclear: it is not renewable or sustainable and cannot effectively connect to smart grids. The technology is not tried and tested, and none of the main players is interested. Thorium reactors are no more than a distraction.

To listen to Dr. Caldicott’s earlier interviews with Dr. Makhijani, click HERE Best of 2008/2009: Dr. Arjun Makhijani on a clean-energy future without nuclear power, oil or coal http://tinyurl.com/z6b48l7

*****************************

HERE: Dr. Arjun Makhijani on the stunning potential for solar, wind and other green energy to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power right now http://tinyurl.com/j9s93mh

***************************

and HERE. Why nuclear power is not the solution to global warming, and how renewables can power everythinghttp://tinyurl.com/hg72gf2

*************************

Did you know every thorium reactor would require a reprocessing center? Also #Thorium Reactor would be enriching bomb grade material and present a bigger proliferation problem. Also problems getting heat sink from the intense heat that is generated and you have to worry about capturing all the deadly isotopes that are created. Have not worked out the kinks of sodium circuit boards frying.

**********************

Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.’

******************************

All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.

******************************

Tickell says thorium reactors would not reduce the volume of waste from uranium reactors. ‘It will create a whole new volume of radioactive waste from previously radio-inert thorium, on top of the waste from uranium reactors. Looked at in these terms, it’s a way of multiplying the volume of radioactive waste humanity can create several times over.’

******************************

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – ‘so these are really U-233 reactors,’ says Karamoskos.

******************************

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium’s superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste. http://tinyurl.com/zk8jt3a

******************************

Check out Helen Caldicott Playlist http://tinyurl.com/hgbxqv6 is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, war, and…